Weapon of the Strong? Government Support for Religion and Majoritarian Terrorism

• Date: 01 November 2020
• Published date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0022002720916854
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Weapon of the Strong?

Government Support

for Religion and

Majoritarian Terrorism

Peter S. Henne

1

, Nilay Saiya

2

, and Ashlyn W. Hand

3

Abstract

This article addresses a puzzle in terrorism studies. That terrorism functions as a

“weapon of the weak” is conventional wisdom among terrorism researchers. When

it comes to religious communities, however, often it is those groups favored by the

state—rather than repressed minority communities—that commit acts of terror-

ism. We argue that this is because official religious favoritism can empower and

radicalize majority communities, leading them to commit more and more destruc-

tive terrorist attacks. We test this claim using a statistical analysis of Muslim-majority

countries. Our findings support the idea that the combination of state support of

religion and discrimination against minorities encourages terrorism from majority

religious groups.

Keywords

terrorism, human rights, conflict, domestic politics, Islam, repression

1

Department of Political Science/Global and Regional Studies Program, College of Arts and Sciences,

University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

2

Program in Public Policy and Global Affairs, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University,

Singapore

3

Program in Public Policy, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Peter S. Henne, Department of Political Science/Global and Regional Studies Program, College of Arts and

Sciences, University of Vermont, 516 Old Mill, 94 University Place, Burlington, VT 05403, USA.

Email: peter.henne@uvm.edu

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2020, Vol. 64(10) 1943-1967

ªThe Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022002720916854

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

On January 27, 2018, terrorists blew up an ambulance packed with explosives near

an interior ministry building in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing 103 people and injuring

another 235.

1

In May of that same year, two suicide bombers detonated bombs at a

mosque and a market in the town of Mubi in in northeastern Nigeria, killing at least

86 people and injuring 58 others. On July 13, 2018, twelve days before general

elections in Pakistan, terrorists deton ated a bomb in the city of Bannu, while a

suicide bomber blew himself up in the city of Mastung—coordinated attacks result-

ing in 377 casualties. These attacks in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Pakistan, respec-

tively, were the three deadliest attacks in the Muslim world in 2018. Ironically, in all

three cases, the attackers did not hail from disaffected or marginalized communities

but rather from majoritarian religious populations that enjoyed special prerogatives

from the state.

Why would individuals from privileged religious populations turn to the gun?

Does religious favoritism explain attacks by fav ored groups? Some believe that

government policies favoring a dominant religious group can satisfy powerful inter-

est groups and ensure stability. On the other hand, others worry this will foment

religious tensions and promote violence. This is a particular concern in Muslim-

majority countries where governments often favor one group at the expense of

others. Sometimes this is Muslims at the expense of non-Muslims, as seen in Egypt’s

restrictions on Coptic Christians. Other times favoritism involves restrictions on one

group of Muslims at the expense of other Muslims, such as the favoring of Sunni

Muslims in Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Shia Muslims after his fall. Muslim

countries also experience very high levels of terrorism, with more Muslims killed by

terrorist attacks in recent decades than any other religious community (Hayden

2017). As a result, understanding the relationship between religious favoritism and

terrorism in Muslim-majority countries will help greatly in securing these countries

against terrorist violence.

We argue that government support for religion is more likely to encourage the

share of terrorism from those identifying with dominant faith traditions compared

with marginalized or suppressed religious communities. States actively advancing

the cause of a particular religious tradition and discriminating against minority faiths

paradoxically encourages terrorism emanating from those of that very tradition.

Through a quantitative analysis of terrorist attacks and fatalities by majority and

minority religious groups, we find that states with extensive religious favoritism do

not necessarily experience more terrorist violence, but the terrorism they do expe-

rience tends to be carried out by majority religious groups. We explain this finding

by arguing that favoritism intensifies the salience of religious issues in political

disputes and emboldens majority religious communities to commit acts of political

violence.

Before proceeding, a word about our definitions is in order. Following the liter-

ature, we define terrorism as political violence committed by subnational actors

against noncombatants. We define state favoritism of religion as a condition that

exists when the government actively favo rs adherents of a certain religion over

1944 Journal of Conflict Resolution 64(10)